Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals

The Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology appraised the current reporting methodological quality of meta-analyses in leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals, and identified the variables associated with the reporting quality.

Dr Pengfei Liu and colleagues from China appraised the current reporting methodological quality of meta-analyses in 5 leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals, and to identify the variables associated with the reporting quality.

The researchers systematically searched the literature of meta-analyses in Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology, Journal of Hepatology, and American Journal of Gastroenterology from 2006 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2014.

Characteristics were extracted based on the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR tool.

The researchers also reported country, number of patients, and funding source.

The team enrolled a total of 127 meta-analyses in this study and were compared among journals, study years, and other characters.

Compliance with the PRISMA statement was 21 out of a maximum of 27

Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

Compliances with the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR checklist were 21 out of a maximum of 27, and 8 out of a maximum of 11, respectively.

Some domains were poorly reported including describing a protocol and/or registration, describing methods, and giving results of additional analyses for PRISMA and duplicating study selection and data extraction, and providing a list of included and excluded studies for AMSTAR.

The team found that publication in recent years showed a significantly better methodological quality than those published in previous years.

Dr Pengfei's team concludes, "This study shows that methodological reporting quality of meta-analyses in the major gastroenterology and hepatology journals has improved in recent years after the publication of the developed PRISMA statement, and it can be further improved."